Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > iPhone, iPad & iPod > SDK will be delayed

SDK will be delayed (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
OMG imagine that. So basically us early adopters are going to pay a ton of money just to get software updates. Great. Honestly, I don't think I'll buy a new iPod again if this is what's going to happen. Also, it's great that you have to have an Intel Mac, although I guess it makes sense.
I'm with you there. Both Sony and Microsoft managed to deliver free updates introducing new features to their portable media players. I wonder why Apple can't figure this one out ...
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ::maroma:: View Post
I have no idea really. I just remember hearing a discussion about it on one of the many podcasts I listen to. Apparently mobile Flash is pretty lame. And I think we can all relate to how the "normal" Flash can bring even the most powerful desktop computers to their knees (when poorly written sites use it).

Apple knows everyone wants Flash on the iPhone. There has to be a good reason why they haven't done it yet. I just wish Apple would let us all know that reason.
You've answered your own question, Flash isn't on the iPhone because its capable of bringing a desktop to its knees, and an iPhone platform has a fraction of that power (in terms of processing and battery). Flash lite is the other end of the scale, too lightweight an app to be useful. What Apple would want is the power of Flash in a form that is not processor and power intensive. Meanwhile, Microsoft are putting Silverlight onto whatever mobile device they can, and have done a deal with Nokia.

From AI - Link
Also on Wednesday, Microsoft released a beta version of Silverlight 2, its competitor to Adobe's Flash for rich, cross-platform media content on the web, and dropped hints that the software could eventually make its way to Apple's iPhone.

"We're releasing Silverlight on more and more mobile platforms, said Scott Guthrie, Microsoft's Corporate Vice President, Developer Division. "We'll release it on anything with an SDK."

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
::maroma::
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PDX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 07:21 PM
 
So does Silverlite play Flash content? Or is it its own separate thing?
     
Langdon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
OMG imagine that. So basically us early adopters are going to pay a ton of money just to get software updates. Great. Honestly, I don't think I'll buy a new iPod again if this is what's going to happen..
this is why I didn't throw the first $20 at them.

People who did were foolish to think it would be the last charge they'd be forced to make before they would be able to use 3rd party applications. I will pay for 2.0 because its a new OS but I won't give apple another dime towards upgrading the Touch outside of that. Apple gave the jailbreak developers all they needed to find a way to get applications to the Touch without having to use iTunes application store.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 11:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Langdon View Post
this is why I didn't throw the first $20 at them.

People who did were foolish to think it would be the last charge they'd be forced to make before they would be able to use 3rd party applications. I will pay for 2.0 because its a new OS but I won't give apple another dime towards upgrading the Touch outside of that. Apple gave the jailbreak developers all they needed to find a way to get applications to the Touch without having to use iTunes application store.
Ha ha. Famous last words. Apple sits on a throne of deception.
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 11:09 PM
 
I must have missed that part... is there another charge to get an SDK-supported Touch?

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
Whee, us iPod touch owners get to pay another nominal fee!
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
gradient
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 11:14 PM
 
What am I missing here? What is this additional charge people are talking about?

Pricing & Availability
Apple plans to release the final iPhone 2.0 software, including the iPhone SDK and new enterprise features, as a free software update for all iPhone customers by the end of June.
Apple Announces iPhone 2.0 Software Beta

edit: I didn't read closely enough obviously....

iPod touch users will be required to purchase a software update to run these applications.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 11:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by legacyb4 View Post
I must have missed that part... is there another charge to get an SDK-supported Touch?
Yeah us iPod touch serfs must pay homage to the Apple lords.
     
butterfly0fdoom
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Yeah us iPod touch serfs must pay homage to the Apple lords.
If you don't like it, then don't buy it. It's established that you're going to have to pay. Get over it.
MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.16 (Black)
iPod classic 160GB
iPhone 8GB
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:26 AM
 
Maybe I've been drinking the Apple Kool-Aid a little too much but ... I just watched the SDK announcement streaming video.

Does anyone but me think that with the core technologies available to the iPhone + what appears to be super support for 3rd party developers (finally) is going to make the iPhone "platform" become become the dominant mobile platform in a year or two (a-la iTunes/iPod platform). Seriously .... even the silly write-in-2-weeks demo apps they showed today just CRUSH what other mobile platforms have to offer. I can see a scenario before the end of 2008 where the top 20 mobile applications on any mobile device will be running on the iPhone.
     
::maroma::
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PDX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Krusty View Post
Maybe I've been drinking the Apple Kool-Aid a little too much but ... I just watched the SDK announcement streaming video.

Does anyone but me think that with the core technologies available to the iPhone + what appears to be super support for 3rd party developers (finally) is going to make the iPhone "platform" become become the dominant mobile platform in a year or two (a-la iTunes/iPod platform). Seriously .... even the silly write-in-2-weeks demo apps they showed today just CRUSH what other mobile platforms have to offer. I can see a scenario before the end of 2008 where the top 20 mobile applications on any mobile device will be running on the iPhone.
Apparently (fake) Steve Jobs agrees with you.
     
Visnaut
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 01:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES View Post
I have to say I find it a bit strange that an iPhone can play a full 3D game at 30fps but can't handle a flash banner ad.

Either Apple is trying to kill flash as a video format or it is a really inefficiently written program.
The demos shown today are compiled for the iPhone's native processor, and use libraries which Apple has already spent a lot of time optimizing and are hardware-accelerated (such as OpenGL ES).

Flash on the other hand, is largely an interpreted language, much like javascript. And we all know how well javascript performs on the iPhone. Flash 9/Actionscript 3 is much faster: it's compiled into a form of bytecode and then translated and cached as native machine code at runtime. However, any Flash client out there needs to support Flash 8/AS2 legacy content and below, which are much slower to execute. So we're back to square one on the issue. And Adobe (and Macromedia before it) has heretofore not been as terribly concerned with optimizing it for specific platforms, as it has been for expanding Flash into a full-blown cross-platform development environment.

So no, I don't think Apple is trying to kill Flash video. It's just an unfortunate consequence of content providers putting all their eggs into one basket.

The SDK that Apple released today is awesome. It's just too bad I can't get my hands on it yet: it's Intel only! I guess my trusty PowerBook has outlived its usefulness. Alas, it was handling Leopard just fine!
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 02:42 AM
 
Intel only? Lame, Apple, very lame.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Drakino
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 03:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Intel only? Lame, Apple, very lame.
Lame how? Why should Apple put a bunch of resources behind supporting a platform that is discontinued, and quickly approaching end of life? Take off your PowerPC fanboy hat for a second, and try putting on a business hat. To make the SDK work on PowerPC systems, Apple would need to make the iPhone emulator work on both sides. Emulators aren't easy to make, and the major difficulty here is emulating the ARM processor in the phone. Now Intel has a big part in the ARM processor, and likely shared a lot of work with Apple to get this up and running. This is effort spent to allow an SDK to work on a platform Apple will stick with for a long time. However to do the same for PowerPC would take even more effort, for an architecture that is fading from the Mac world.
<This space under renovation>
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 03:53 AM
 
If there's a valid technical reason why it's Intel only, as you assume concerning the emulator, then I'll deal with it. But if it's forced obsolescence, I reserve the right to moan.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 10:15 AM
 
I don't mind paying... but not twice unnecessarily. Then again, Apple will probably make the base requirement for 2.0 that you have to have 1.1.3 or above WITH the upgrade package installed thus excluding all the pre-January 2008 Touches which means I'll be out 2 x upgrade charges either way.

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom View Post
If you don't like it, then don't buy it. It's established that you're going to have to pay. Get over it.
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 10:21 AM
 
Feels like iTouch users are getting punished for not giving Apple $10 a month by signing with Cingular.
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Feels like iTouch users are getting punished for not giving Apple $10 a month by signing with Cingular.
Well, yes. That's pretty much exactly it. iPhones are providing residual income to Apple which iTouches are not ... they are purchased outright. So, they have to pay for OS updates that iPhone users get because they are paying Apple an extra $120/yr.
     
k squared
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Feels like iTouch users are getting punished for not giving Apple $10 a month by signing with Cingular.
Punished how? By paying for an operating system update? Unless one buys a new computer, doesn't 10.5 cost money?

Touch owners bought a product with a set number of features. New features cost additional. No one is forcing any touch owners to update.

Get over it.
     
k squared
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Krusty View Post
Well, yes. That's pretty much exactly it. iPhones are providing residual income to Apple which iTouches are not ... they are purchased outright. So, they have to pay for OS updates that iPhone users get because they are paying Apple an extra $120/yr.
But is this really true? I thought Apple was spreading the price of an iPhone over multiple quarters, allowing for free updates. The deal they made with AT&T for a piece of monthly income is icing on the cake.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by k squared View Post
Punished how? By paying for an operating system update? Unless one buys a new computer, doesn't 10.5 cost money?.
Sure, but 10.5.2 doesn't.

Didn't AppleTV owners just get a major update for free?


Originally Posted by k squared View Post
Get over it.
Get a grip.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Sure, but 10.5.2 doesn't.

Didn't AppleTV owners just get a major update for free?
No major new functionality that isn't payable in itself - HD movie downloads cost extra. Airport Express functionality isn't really "new" in light of what it could do before.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
No major new functionality that isn't payable in itself - HD movie downloads cost extra.
Coincidentally, so will most of the Apps. (And yes, Apple will be generating revenue from 3rd party ones)
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Drakino View Post
Lame how? Why should Apple put a bunch of resources behind supporting a platform that is discontinued, and quickly approaching end of life? Take off your PowerPC fanboy hat for a second, and try putting on a business hat. To make the SDK work on PowerPC systems, Apple would need to make the iPhone emulator work on both sides. Emulators aren't easy to make, and the major difficulty here is emulating the ARM processor in the phone. Now Intel has a big part in the ARM processor, and likely shared a lot of work with Apple to get this up and running. This is effort spent to allow an SDK to work on a platform Apple will stick with for a long time. However to do the same for PowerPC would take even more effort, for an architecture that is fading from the Mac world.
Apple has a habit of forcibly obsoleting older products. Best example is when they disabled PowerPCs from being able to run OS9. Another good example is when they disabled in firmware the iBook's ability to support monitor spanning (not forced obsolescence, but forced downgrading to make a more expensive product more appealing)
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Coincidentally, so will most of the Apps. (And yes, Apple will be generating revenue from 3rd party ones)
Actually, all of the 3rd party app will generate revenue. Developers will have to pay $99/year to host their apps, even the free apps.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by k squared View Post
Punished how? By paying for an operating system update? Unless one buys a new computer, doesn't 10.5 cost money?
10.5 costs money. 10.5.1 does not.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Actually, all of the 3rd party app will generate revenue. Developers will have to pay $99/year to host their apps, even the free apps.
Does it make any financial sense, then, to offer free apps on the iPlatform? Doesn't seem to, unless the same developer offers commercial apps too.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Does it make any financial sense, then, to offer free apps on the iPlatform? Doesn't seem to, unless the same developer offers commercial apps too.
Or a major name, like AIM, Google, Facebook, Flikr...
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Does it make any financial sense, then, to offer free apps on the iPlatform? Doesn't seem to, unless the same developer offers commercial apps too.
Exactly. I doubt we'll be seeing many free apps on the iPlatform. The only free apps will be from developers using them to promote their commercial products (like AIM, Google, Facebook, Flikr), or from out-of-work developers wanting to showcase their skills.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 01:01 PM
 
This reminds me of MS and the 360, to be quite frank.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Exactly. I doubt we'll be seeing many free apps on the iPlatform. The only free apps will be from developers using them to promote their commercial products (like AIM, Google, Facebook, Flikr), or from out-of-work developers wanting to showcase their skills.
Which comprise the vast, vast majority of software available for computers today. I think there will be tons and tons of free software for the iPhone. I mean, why does freeware exist at all? Freeware programmers invest time and money to write software. It's not like the $99 fee + free SDK is all that different from buying some commercial developer studio. Even the webapps, virtually all of which are free, take time and usually money.

I can't wait to see all the "countdown" apps that won't cost consumers a dime.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Coincidentally, so will most of the Apps. (And yes, Apple will be generating revenue from 3rd party ones)
Full Exchange support is most definitely new functionality.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 01:45 PM
 
Like I said, a non-iPhone penalty.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom View Post
If you don't like it, then don't buy it. It's established that you're going to have to pay. Get over it.
I didn't know that they were going to make you pay for software updates when I got my touch. If I did I would have bought a Sony Walkman or a classic.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Drakino View Post
Lame how? Why should Apple put a bunch of resources behind supporting a platform that is discontinued, and quickly approaching end of life? Take off your PowerPC fanboy hat for a second, and try putting on a business hat. To make the SDK work on PowerPC systems, Apple would need to make the iPhone emulator work on both sides. Emulators aren't easy to make, and the major difficulty here is emulating the ARM processor in the phone. Now Intel has a big part in the ARM processor, and likely shared a lot of work with Apple to get this up and running. This is effort spent to allow an SDK to work on a platform Apple will stick with for a long time. However to do the same for PowerPC would take even more effort, for an architecture that is fading from the Mac world.
All it would take for the SDK itself to be universal is for the coder to check "Universal" instead of "Intel" when he launched Xcode.
     
Langdon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Exactly. I doubt we'll be seeing many free apps on the iPlatform.
I doubt that will end up being true.
There will be plenty of developers and development groups who will put things out. Some in part because they like to code and put up shareware and others to create a name for themselves and a brand users will recognize for later titles.
Plus Apple's certification process won't last. I will bet that within a week of the iTAS being opened someone will hack up a way to create fake certificates.
     
drmcnutt
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I didn't know that they were going to make you pay for software updates when I got my touch. If I did I would have bought a Sony Walkman or a classic.
Apple is making you pay for a software upgrade? They send some guys over in black turtlenecks with bats and tell you you're gonna have to pay for an upgrade that gives you greater functionality than the product you originally paid for?

Personally I would have liked the opportunity to upgrade my nano to carry video and would have paid twenty bucks to do it, but Apple never offered that to previous iPod generations. Now you can upgrade and I think that's wonderful. As an iPhone owner I'm happy to get a software update for the cost of keeping a contract, but I would pay for an update that significantly updates my hardware too. The only way you could get new features previous was to buy a new iPod.
DRM

---------------------------------
Gigabit Ethernet G4 OWC mercury upgrade 1.33
15" Powerbook G4 1.5GB/80GB/SuperDrive
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 09:55 PM
 
Will iPhone Software 2.0 support GMail Push email? Or only exchange?
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by drmcnutt View Post
Apple is making you pay for a software upgrade? They send some guys over in black turtlenecks with bats and tell you you're gonna have to pay for an upgrade that gives you greater functionality than the product you originally paid for?
Well, yes. They know I'm an Apple geek and it torments me when new software comes out that I have to have to show my nerdiness so they force me into buying it. This is personal Steve!
     
Dale Sorel
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: With my kitties!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Didn't AppleTV owners just get a major update for free?.
They sure did... I think the difference here is that the Touch has been a huge success, while the Apple TV has been a much lesser success (flop). So I'm sure Apple is hoping new software can only help their pet project.
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 01:16 PM
 
Correct. Which is why I'll wait until 2.0 comes out although I'll be a bit peeved if I have to "do" 1.1.3/4 before I can get up to 2.0 (double upgrade).

What will be irritating though is if bug fixes in 2.x updates cost money EACH time.

Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Full Exchange support is most definitely new functionality.
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
butterfly0fdoom
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by legacyb4 View Post
Correct. Which is why I'll wait until 2.0 comes out although I'll be a bit peeved if I have to "do" 1.1.3/4 before I can get up to 2.0 (double upgrade).

What will be irritating though is if bug fixes in 2.x updates cost money EACH time.
Bug fixes don't cost money. Remember, the $20 is for the 5 applications in addition to 1.1.3, not for 1.1.3. The free 1.1.3 merely just doesn't include the 5 apps.

Originally Posted by drmcnutt View Post
Apple is making you pay for a software upgrade? They send some guys over in black turtlenecks with bats and tell you you're gonna have to pay for an upgrade that gives you greater functionality than the product you originally paid for?

Personally I would have liked the opportunity to upgrade my nano to carry video and would have paid twenty bucks to do it, but Apple never offered that to previous iPod generations. Now you can upgrade and I think that's wonderful. As an iPhone owner I'm happy to get a software update for the cost of keeping a contract, but I would pay for an update that significantly updates my hardware too. The only way you could get new features previous was to buy a new iPod.
Bingo. You normally have to shell out for a new iPod to get new functionality. But because of the way the touch works, Apple will sell you the new functionality at a lower charge.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Well, yes. They know I'm an Apple geek and it torments me when new software comes out that I have to have to show my nerdiness so they force me into buying it. This is personal Steve!
How do they force you to buy it? They don't hold you at gun point and tell you to upgrade or else. They don't revoke your warranty until you upgrade. They don't force you to upgrade in any way. They offer it a an option. Previous nano owners had to buy a new nano to get video capability. 4G iPod owners had to get a photo/color for photo viewing, and those owners had to get a 5G iPod to watch videos. You only need to pay $20 to get 5 applications. Would you rather Apple present you the options of "don't bother upgrading" or "buy a new iPod touch to get the upgrades"?

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I didn't know that they were going to make you pay for software updates when I got my touch. If I did I would have bought a Sony Walkman or a classic.
Once again, you pay for the 5 applications, not for 1.1.3. As for 2.0, it's a completely new version of the firmware, essentially. iPhone owners pay for it via their contracts. iPod touch owners pay for it the way a Mac user with Tiger would pay for Leopard. It's perfectly reasonable.
MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.16 (Black)
iPod classic 160GB
iPhone 8GB
     
k squared
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Sure, but 10.5.2 doesn't.

Didn't AppleTV owners just get a major update for free?
We don't own 10.5...we are licensing it from Apple. And Apple records the appleTV on a subscription basis, so they can roll out updates with out charging for them over the life of the subscription. I think it's 24 months, but it might be shorter.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom View Post
Bug fixes don't cost money. Remember, the $20 is for the 5 applications in addition to 1.1.3, not for 1.1.3. The free 1.1.3 merely just doesn't include the 5 apps.
No, actually it does. $20 pays for a 20 kb file to activate the apps.



Bingo. You normally have to shell out for a new iPod to get new functionality. But because of the way the touch works, Apple will sell you the new functionality at a lower charge.
For a hardware upgrade maybe. We didn't have to pay for 10.5.2.



How do they force you to buy it? They don't hold you at gun point and tell you to upgrade or else. They don't revoke your warranty until you upgrade. They don't force you to upgrade in any way. They offer it a an option. Previous nano owners had to buy a new nano to get video capability. 4G iPod owners had to get a photo/color for photo viewing, and those owners had to get a 5G iPod to watch videos. You only need to pay $20 to get 5 applications. Would you rather Apple present you the options of "don't bother upgrading" or "buy a new iPod touch to get the upgrades"?
Did I say they did? When have hardware upgrades ever been free. Never. Hardware upgrades are irrelevant to this discussion.


Once again, you pay for the 5 applications, not for 1.1.3. As for 2.0, it's a completely new version of the firmware, essentially. iPhone owners pay for it via their contracts. iPod touch owners pay for it the way a Mac user with Tiger would pay for Leopard. It's perfectly reasonable.
The equivalent of paying for 1.1.3 is sort of like Apple making you pay to have the Time Machine icon in 10.5.2 appear in the menu bar. It doesn't happen.
     
slugslugslug
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Actually, all of the 3rd party app will generate revenue. Developers will have to pay $99/year to host their apps, even the free apps.
Wait, are you sure about the "per year" part? Perhaps everything I've read about the SDK glossed over this (and I haven't watched the event video), but I haven't seen anything about having to renew one's status after a year. Got a source?
( Last edited by slugslugslug; Mar 8, 2008 at 06:15 PM. )
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by slugslugslug View Post
Wait, are you sure about the "per year" part? Perhaps everything I've read about the SDK glossed over this (and I haven't watched the event video), but I haven't seen anything about having to renew one's status after a year. Got a source?
Yes, it's per year. And Apple isn't making any money off of all them, only the ones that aren't free.
     
Stogieman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 07:45 PM
 
Were does it say on Apple's website that it's $99 per year? I looked all over. Could some post a link?

Slick shoes?! Are you crazy?!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by k squared View Post
We don't own 10.5...we are licensing it from Apple. And Apple records the appleTV on a subscription basis, so they can roll out updates with out charging for them over the life of the subscription. I think it's 24 months, but it might be shorter.
What subscription is there on the AppleTV?

Though, I'm still baffled at how Apple can afford to roll out new functionality to MacOS incremental updates and iTunes without charge. Neither has a subscription model and both go out to more computers than iPod Touchs
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Mar 8, 2008 at 07:55 PM. )
     
butterfly0fdoom
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
No, actually it does. $20 pays for a 20 kb file to activate the apps.
You understand my point. Your nitpicking isn't conducive to the discussion.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
For a hardware upgrade maybe. We didn't have to pay for 10.5.2.
And you didn't have to pay for 1.1.3. You merely had to pay to access the 5 applications. You had to pay for 10.5, however. Likewise, you'd have to pay for 2.0.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Did I say they did? When have hardware upgrades ever been free. Never. Hardware upgrades are irrelevant to this discussion.
Fine. The 5G and the 6G have identical hardware. However, the 6G comes with an upgraded firmware. To get the upgraded firmware, one must upgrade to a newer but practically identical hardware. With the iPod touch, you don't have to get new hardware to get new functionality.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
The equivalent of paying for 1.1.3 is sort of like Apple making you pay to have the Time Machine icon in 10.5.2 appear in the menu bar. It doesn't happen.
No, you pay to activate the 5 apps, not for 1.1.3. 1.1.3 is free.
MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.16 (Black)
iPod classic 160GB
iPhone 8GB
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom View Post
You understand my point. Your nitpicking isn't conducive to the discussion.
Merely pointing out the fact that you actually don't pay to get the apps, they are they. You pay for a line of code that makes them show up on the homescreen.

And you didn't have to pay for 1.1.3. You merely had to pay to access the 5 applications. You had to pay for 10.5, however. Likewise, you'd have to pay for 2.0.
Sure. But like I said you didn't have to pay for 10.5.2 which had huge improvement and new functionality over 10.5.1. The difference between 2.0 and 1.1.3 isn't like 10.4.11 and 10.5.2. It's still basically exactly the same besides the ability to purchase apps and iTunes has a new icon. Apple has basically gone through no expenditure at all to make the SDK available besides the server space hosting it, they basically said that in the presentation. And a company with $15m in the bank can afford that.


Fine. The 5G and the 6G have identical hardware. However, the 6G comes with an upgraded firmware. To get the upgraded firmware, one must upgrade to a newer but practically identical hardware. With the iPod touch, you don't have to get new hardware to get new functionality.
Not true. Apple made an update for 5G owners that gave them all the functionality of the 5.5G iPods except the search function, which is near useless with a clickwheel anyway (as a side note, it seems odd that they don't feature this on iPhones/touches.


No, you pay to activate the 5 apps, not for 1.1.3. 1.1.3 is free.
True. But you also get an annoying screen whenever you start up iTunes, and it might be just me, but as soon as I paid for the upgrade my Safari stopped crashing whenever I played a streaming QuickTime video.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:08 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,